E-Rate & school connectivity

My late wife was teaching in a sick building in San Francisco in 1989 and was environmentally injured. Because of this we got involved in a support group for people with similar difficulties. Over the years, because of my involvement with that group, I've met many people whose neurological reactions to environmental exposures resulted in them developing sensitivites to wireless technology. I don't know anyone who was actually injured by using wireless technoclogy, but I know plenty of people who cannot tolerate being around electro-magnetic radiation. This has profoundly interfered with being able to work and even with access to many buildings. I don't know the ins and outs of legislative issues surrounding this, but I do know that telecommunications companies have managed to pass laws that even make it illegal for residents of a community to oppose cell towers and 5G technology on health grounds. I have read that In 1996 the telecom industry got a law passed to bring toxic wireless radiation to market with no safety testing, and no accountability for harm. Obviously something is not right about that. Since the issue is now in the forefront, I support all possible caution and investigation into these issues rather than a continued violation of consumers' rights to protection from harm.

For the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Re-evaluation of Radiofrequency limits and policies. I am participating as a member of the public affected by health damage caused by wireless technologies (specifically, by a mobile phone tower) but I will incorporate references from peer-reviewed scientific studies to support what I am going to relate. My story: I experienced ten years of progressive decline in my physical and cognitive health with multiple symptoms that doctors couldn't explain (severe sleep disorder confirmed by polysomnography, contractures and intense muscle and joint pain, exercise intolerance confirmed by stress tests, dysautonomia confirmed by tilt table testing , attention, memory, and concentration deficits confirmed by tests, vitamin D deficiency, and hyperparathyroidism). After those ten years without a diagnosis, I received, in this order and over the course of eight years, the following successive diagnoses: fibromyalgia (FM), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)—doctors told me these were chronic and incurable diseases—a cellular problem (a 40% deficiency of coenzyme Q10 confirmed by skin biopsy and fibroblast analysis, indicating mitochondrial dysfunction), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and finally, electrohypersensitivity. (EHS). I underwent genetic testing, and no mutations were found in the genes responsible for producing coenzyme Q10 or in my mitochondria. I was a primary school teacher and a secondary school teacher, but physical and cognitive problems prevented me from continuing to work. I was granted disability benefits, and my life was completely disrupted for many years. I received the diagnosis of electrohypersensitivity after undergoing microwave and low-frequency current therapy for a knee sprain. This treatment, which didn't occur immediately but took several days, caused severe muscle worsening (cramps and involuntary movements of the treated muscles every few seconds ) and a decline in my overall health (sleep problems, pain, exercise intolerance, etc.). I was diagnosed with EHS not so much because I had developed new symptoms, but because the cause of the symptoms I had been suffering from for many years had been discovered. This medical diagnosis is supported, in my case, by medical certificates from an endocrinologist, a neurologist, and an internist. I was advised to have my house measured. It was then that I discovered something I was completely unaware of and would never have connected to my symptoms: I had lived for 25 years facing a cell phone tower, located about 250 meters away, whose antenna pointed directly at my house without any obstruction. When I checked the data on the official Spanish government website regarding that antenna, I discovered that it was emitting between 200 and 2,000 times more than any other antenna or in any other direction. The reason was that there were no antennas beyond my house, and the coverage of a large part of the city was covered by the emissions from that antenna directed toward my house. In 2016, they installed more cell phone antennas, and the emission levels toward my home decreased, but the damage had already been done; the sensitization of my central nervous system and the cellular damage had already occurred. Some symptoms, such as insomnia and muscle tension, began as soon as I moved into that house, but the decline in my health was slow, progressive, and insidious. It reached its peak many years after I moved in and only subsided after I was treated with high doses of coenzyme Q10 and after actively avoiding electromagnetic pollution. My symptoms are not caused by immediate exposure to EMFs, but rather by chronic and cumulative exposure. I experienced a worsening of my condition during and after the COVID -19 lockdown, as a new 5G frequency had been introduced to the antenna beforehand. In 2020, I decided to leave my house and move to a rural area where the nearest cell tower is 2 km away and I have no electromagnetic pollution. Over the last few years, I have experienced such improvement that I have fully recovered my physical and cognitive abilities. The symptoms of all the central sensitization diseases that I had been diagnosed with as chronic and incurable have disappeared, and I have also been able to significantly reduce my coenzyme Q10 dosage since moving. Scientific evidence related to my case: My experience, supported by scientific studies, leads me to believe that not only electromagnetic hypersensitivity, but all central sensitization disorders (fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, and EHS) may be caused by, or at least closely related to, electromagnetic pollution. These disorders are generating enormous medical, occupational, social, and economic costs, are cutting short many lives, and affect millions of people worldwide. Scientific studies provide ample evidence to support my argument. The effects of wireless technologies have only been regulated for acute exposures and thermal effects, not for chronic exposures or biological effects. Current limits ignore years of accumulated scientific evidence demonstrating health risks even at currently regulated levels. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36253855/ ICBE-EMF 2022. 130 years of scientific studies on the biological effects of EMF and RF, from chronic exposures, carried out in Russia, show that, beyond thermal damage, the main biological damage occurs in the central nervous system and in cells. https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/57904 Grigoriev et al 2024 . https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399258297_Adverse_Effects_of_Electromagnetic_Fields_on_The_Central_Nervous_System_A_Review Oguzhan et al 2025 Cellular oxidative stress, neurological damage, and DNA damage are the effects of RF and the low-frequency EMFs that modulate them that have the greatest scientific consensus, according to the Bioinitiative Report . https://bioinitiative.org/ RF EMFs generate oxidative stress capable of altering cellular function and metabolism: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33917298/ Mevissen et al 2021 Damage to the central nervous system, metabolic and cellular problems, alterations in antioxidant levels, and cellular oxidative stress have been described and could explain the symptoms of the so-called central sensitization diseases (we will use this term for practical reasons to refer to FM, CFS, MCS, and EHS, although the damage seems to occur far beyond the central nervous system). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18191990/ Yunus 2008 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x Carruthers et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33235303/ Piras et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21845158/ De Luca et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20424583/ Codero et al 2010 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20417529/ Cordero et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24812443/ De Luca et al 2014 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27454111/ Velyaev et al 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32289567/ Stein et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34298941/ Belpomme et al 2021 DNA damage and altered antioxidants have been found in people living near mobile phone base stations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28777669/ Zothansiama et al 2017 French researchers have established a molecular definition of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) by analyzing fibroblasts from affected individuals. They concluded that these cells have difficulty managing their own oxidative stress and exhibit spontaneous DNA breaks and genomic instability. They found that this would make EHS individuals more sensitive than the general population to the oxidative stress generated by ionizing radiation. (It seems logical that this could also make them more sensitive to cellular oxidative stress caused by chronic exposure to non-ionizing radiation.) They characterized two subgroups within EHS individuals: one with a tendency toward premature aging and another with a tendency toward cancer. Further research in this area would be very interesting, including exposing fibroblasts from individuals with EHS and other central sensitization diseases to non-ionizing radiation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40429933/ Sonzogni et al 2025 It is important that the cells of the affected individuals, not the individuals themselves, are exposed to modulated RF radiation. Exposure levels are already regulated to prevent immediate effects, let alone perceived or subjective effects. The most significant damage results from chronic exposure. People should not be chronically exposed to what harms them. If the exposure is occasional, insufficient, or short, it is not enough to demonstrate causality (except in allergy tests, but EHS is not an allergy). This invalidates provocation studies methodologically. Neither ionizing nor non-ionizing radiation is perceptible to the senses, nor should its immediate health effects be subjectively perceived, as the damage occurs at the cellular, metabolic, or neurological level. The studies chosen to verify the health damage of RF should be genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, or proteomic, but on cells, not directly exposing people, as would be done for any other toxicological damage or for any other disease. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229366/ Leszczynski 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39866356/ Leszczynski 2025 But we will not limit ourselves to EHS: the symptoms and etiology of all central sensitization diseases can be explained, to a large extent, through the effects of low-frequency EMFs and RF on biology and health: Martin Pall's research has described how central sensitization diseases are caused by the NO/ONOO cycle of cellular oxidative stress, which leads to an excess of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite . Subsequent research by the same scientist identifies electromagnetic fields (EMFs) as the cause of this cycle because they cause the excessive opening of voltage-gated calcium channels in cells, generating cellular oxidative stress and an excess of nitric oxide and peroxynitrite (the NO/ONOO cycle). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11461161/ Pall 2001 https://pubmed.nc b i.nlm.nih.gov/23802593/ Pall 2013 Along these same lines, Dimitris Pangopoulos had been publishing since 2000 that polarized electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce cellular ionic oscillations that generate excessive opening of voltage-gated calcium channels, causing cellular oxidative stress that affects the cell membrane, ion exchange, and the electron transport chain. According to this researcher, all high-frequency wireless radiation (RF) is modulated by low-frequency EMFs, which are what produce the biological and cellular effects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34617575/ Panagopoulos et al 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40547468/ Panagopoulos et al 2025 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42002914/ Panagopoulos et al 2026 EMFs have the capacity to alter mitochondrial function, producing significant changes in certain antioxidant enzymes—which, as we have seen, are also being found to be altered in several of the reviewed studies in people with central sensitization diseases. Oxidative stress is involved in both cancer and aging. EMFs can have therapeutic effects, but they can also have harmful effects if doses and long-term exposure time are not controlled. This calls into question the limits for wireless technologies set by ICNIRP in 2020 or those maintained by the FCC, which only consider acute and isolated exposures, but not chronic exposures. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39456490/ Gurham et al 2024 In this regard, the ICNIRP itself acknowledges, in its 2020 review of limits, that one of the mechanisms by which RF can harm health is through changes in the permeability of cell membranes : “If the pulse is intense and brief, exposure to the resulting electromagnetic fields can cause cell membranes to become permeable, which could lead to other cellular changes. However, there is no evidence that the radiofrequency element of an electromagnetic field (without the low-frequency component) can cause sufficient changes in the permeability of cell membranes.” The parenthetical statement inserted by ICNIRP is misleading. Panagopoulos explains that all radio frequencies are modulated with low frequencies. ICNIRP tends to include laboratory studies in its reviews where the radiofrequency is pure and not modulated with other radio frequencies, but in real-world applications, all radio frequencies (mobile phones, antennas, Wi-Fi, etc.) are modulated with low frequencies. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32167495/ ICNIRP 2020 Pulsed electric fields are being used in medicine with controlled doses and durations to permeabilize the cell membrane through electroporation, but this can affect voltage sensors, disrupting the entire functioning of the cell membrane. This could lead to pathological effects if exposures are chronic. https://pubme d .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32559411/ Rems et al 2020 A systematic review compiles the damage to cells and neurons caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). It has been repeatedly demonstrated experimentally that exposing neurons to EMFs in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, causes damage. The central nervous system is particularly sensitive to this damage. The harm is more severe when exposures are chronic. https://pubmed.n c bi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/ Bertagna et al 2021 A systematic review of animal studies reveals the ability of radiofrequency (RF) to alter neurotransmitter metabolism and function, resulting in a disruption of the excitatory-inhibitory balance of neurons and the central nervous system. This leads to, among other consequences, cognitive problems and decreased learning and memory capacity. This imbalance between inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitters is also being observed in central sensitization disorders. https://pubmed.nc b i.nlm.nih.gov/34485223/ Hu et al 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21913179/ Foerster et al 2012 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28033157/ Pyke et al 2017 Voltage-gated calcium channels, which we have seen are particularly affected by RF EMFs, are also related to pain, so prevalent in central sensitization diseases. https://pubmed.n c bi.nlm.nih.gov/35501819/ Harding et al 2022 RF EMFs are capable of altering the electroencephalogram of animals and humans, revealing changes in brain function and waves (particularly affecting alpha waves, which are associated with relaxation, concentration, memory, and sleep). This, combined with the inhibitory-excitatory imbalance of neurons caused by EMFs , as previously mentioned, could explain the dysautonomia present in central sensitization disorders. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40363190/ Torkan et al 2025 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11812390/ Lyskov et al 2001 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02428.x Carruthers et al 2011 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684066/ Murga Gandasegui et al 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12122925/ Martínez Lavín et al 2002 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17626612/ Eisinger 2007 RF EMFs are also likely to disrupt sleep. Specifically, interindividual differences have been found that may be influenced by genetic factors. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39534742/ Bijlsma et al 2024 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40541756/ Sousouri et al 2025 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2571467 Carter et al 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21489004/ Schmid et al 2012 Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are being used experimentally to activate and deactivate genes, which can have therapeutic effects but is also likely to produce negative health effects, since cellular electrical mechanisms, membrane potentials, and ion channels appear to underlie this capacity for genetic activation and deactivation. Experiments have shown that certain RF frequencies can modify brain RNA. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41985457/ Kim et al 2026 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33826908/ Levin et al 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35435088/ Dasdag et al 2022 RF EMFs are likely to amplify the effects of other environmental toxins that are already causing numerous health problems and may also be closely linked to the etiology of central sensitization disorders. We all have a multitude of chemical substances in our blood, and studies suggest that EMFs may be permeabilizing the blood-brain barrier, allowing these substances to reach the brain. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ Kostoff et al 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33071139/ Sueiro-Benavides et al 2021 https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6253 Havas et al 2025 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/ Nittby et al 2009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25598203/ Tang et al 2015 Eighty percent of those affected by central sensitization disorders are women. There are specific sex differences in the effects produced by electromagnetic pollution. The main factors involved in these differences include the Heart orientation and position, cardiac mass, tissue conductivity, hormonal modulation, autonomic balance, and cortical field organization. Beyond sex, consistent findings demonstrate that biological effects depend not only on field intensity and frequency, but also on polarity (north/south) and the direction (vector angle). These parameters are often overlooked or not reported in published work. Some observations even suggest a direct relationship between polarity and sex, with divergent physiological and behavioral outcomes. It is essential to conduct sex-differentiated research on the health effects of RF, specifically include women in research, and report research results separated by sex. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41618935/ Nelson 2026 Conclusion: It can still be argued that the current limits for wireless technologies are safe despite all the accumulated scientific evidence to the contrary. Central sensitization disorders can still be treated with antidepressants, which will worsen the underlying cellular and mitochondrial imbalances and damage—initially, after my diagnosis of fibromyalgia and ME/CFS, I was treated with low-dose antidepressants, and this caused a dramatic deterioration in my health that did not subside until they were discontinued, probably because they were worsening already severely impaired cellular function. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10836141/ Wallace et al 2000 If we continue to deny peer-reviewed scientific evidence, the accumulated damage and suffering will result in human, social, labor, and economic costs that may prove unbearable for our economies and societies. It is essential to begin applying the precautionary principle by honestly reviewing current limits in light of current scientific evidence and investing in research and medical training. In particular, it is necessary to investigate the so-called central sensitization diseases that have emerged and spread rapidly in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, affecting billions of people worldwide, predominantly women. Their potential link to electromagnetic pollution should be a priority area for research and prevention. Risk assessment needs to be different for populations such as children, pregnant women, older adults, people with implanted medical devices, workers with high occupational exposure, people with pre-existing medical conditions, and people affected by central sensitization diseases, for the reasons already stated. Blanca Salinas Álvarez Blanca.salinas.alvarez@gmail.com

I first noticed a reaction to electromagnetic radiation in 2008. At the time, I was working as an IT manager and was responsible for setting up mobile and wireless devices for employees. I began experiencing a sensation of electrical disturbance or mild electric shock when the devices were held close to my head or body. The sensation was difficult to describe but I would compare it to the feeling of having a “static TV” inside my body. I found it difficult to concentrate, felt nauseous and dizzy when this happened. At the time I had no knowledge of EMF or EMR and ignored the strange sensations. As the years passed, I began noticing these sensations more frequently and with greater intensity, coinciding with the proliferation of cell towers, Wi-Fi and mobile devices. At the time, I knew very little about the potential effects of radiation exposure but I naturally began avoiding it as much as possible. I simply knew that I felt better when I was not in proximity of wireless devices so I used phones and computers connected through wired connections rather than wireless technology. In 2018, after several weeks of commuting to work by train, my reactions to radiation exposure became significantly more severe. Almost overnight, I began experiencing symptoms that developed into chronic fatigue syndrome. During rush hour in Chicago, I observed that train cars were often filled with an estimated 50–75 people actively using mobile phones in each car. This was a striking contrast to my commutes in 2008, when I recall seeing no more than about 10 people using mobile devices in a train car. Over that decade, I had witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of wireless devices in crowded public spaces, while my own symptoms had become progressively more intense. This health issue forced me to take a leave of absence and eventually resign from my position as an IT Manager. My symptoms had become so debilitating that I could no longer fulfill my professional responsibilities or tolerate the daily commute to work. After visiting several doctors, I was told that nothing appeared to be medically wrong with me, as their examinations and tests had not identified any underlying health issues. Despite the severity of my symptoms and the profound impact they had on my ability to work and carry on with daily life, I was left without a clear explanation for what I was experiencing. I began researching my condition independently and came across a TEDx talk on YouTube titled “Wireless Wake-Up Call” by Jeromy Johnson. His presentation resonated deeply with me, as the experiences he described closely mirrored what I had been experiencing. This discovery prompted me to explore grounding as a way to manage my symptoms. After I began grounding, I noticed what felt like an immediate improvement in my condition. Within a few months my chronic fatigue had subsided and I was able to function normally again. Although my chronic fatigue improved significantly, I continued to experience the same sensations when exposed to high levels of electromagnetic fields. Living in Chicago has become increasingly challenging and I have to be selective about the areas I visit. Unfortunately I avoid certain areas of the city, including parts of downtown, where the deployment of 5G towers has saturated the environment with radiation. Thank you for taking the time to consider this important issue. I urge the government to review and update existing safety standards for electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure to ensure they reflect the latest scientific research and findings. I believe a more comprehensive, evidence-based approach to evaluating potential health risks is essential to protecting public health and ensuring that safety guidelines keep pace with the rapid expansion of wireless technology.

Morgan, Kesari & Davis (2014): Evidence that children may absorb more wireless radiation than adults. Cordelli et al. (2024): Effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies reporting moderate-certainty evidence for reduced pregnancy rates and low-certainty evidence for reduced sperm counts, with important limitations. BioInitiative Report (2012, with Subsequent Research Updates): Updated Research Summaries – neurological effects, oxidative stress, DNA damage, genetic effects, and electromagnetic sensitivity. Individual summaries have different update dates, including 2022.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because we recently moved to a home where a cell tower operates just a few houses down the street and since moving half a year ago my sleep has been disrupted and mental health diminished. This tower is directly across the street from the high school which adds to the concern. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

My wife suffers severe brain fog and headaches whenever we go into town. We deal with a few businesses located proximate to a 5G tower and it ALWAYS affects her. When we only need to go to the other end of town, she fares much better. The public desperately needs industry and health agencies to reassess EMF exposure effects and focus on safeguards and changes necessary to ensure healthier outcomes.

1996 limits are absolutely inadequate and those of us whose lives have been destroyed by the smart grid roll out and the towers and forced led light conversion are the evidence .there are hundreds of thousands of us that cant live anywhere since someone decided the IOT's digital ecosystems would replace our living ecosystems. Restore independent federal research programs and coordinated interagency review of the issue. All activities and funding should be publicly reported. Direct federal agencies to commission the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the health and environmental effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields, including RF and ELF exposures, and issue actionable policy recommendations, research priorities, monitoring, and protection of children, workers, and ecosystems. Direct the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a comprehensive, transparent review of human, animal, and mechanistic evidence on the health effects of RF, ELF and other non-ionizing exposures, including chronic exposure and vulnerable populations. Prioritize evaluations of RF radiation and ELF magnetic fields for inclusion in the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens. Research should encompass all artificial non-ionizing frequencies, including power lines, charging systems, wireless power transfer, LED systems, satellite systems, and mmWave–THz bands associated with emerging technologies. Risk Assessment and Exposure Limits The FCC has no public health, environmental, or biological expertise and cannot perform scientific analysis. Direct relevant federal agencies with public health expertise to establish legally enforceable, science-based exposure limits for RF radiation and other non-ionizing electric and magnetic fields, addressing long-term, cumulative exposures and non-thermal effects, with protections for children, pregnant people, workers, and medically vulnerable populations, and clear monitoring and enforcement requirements. RF and EMF radiation exposure limits should be based on a comprehensive review and risk analysis of scientific research. The approach should be a public health approach of risk mitigation. Science-based safety limits for health protection need to be developed for all artificial non-ionizing frequencies, including those from electricity and electrical charging systems, wireless power transfer, LEDs and artificial light, satellite systems, and the higher THz bands associated with emerging technologies. Develop wildlife-specific exposure limits and immediate policies to mitigate wildlife exposure and environmental exposures in ecologically sensitive areas. Require regular, publicly scheduled reviews of exposure limits and regulations based on current scientific evidence, with public participation, independent scientific review, and timely revisions to address new findings, technologies, and exposure patterns. Safety Testing and Enforcement Require premarket safety testing for health effects from chronic exposure for all new wireless technologies, and for proposed electrical grid infrastructure (such as high voltage 765 kv power lines) emissions, just as is required for drugs. Modernize cell phone and wireless device compliance tests to reflect real-world use of people of all ages, including direct body contact and simultaneous exposure from multiple devices. Establish routine robust post-market RF radiation compliance testing for all cell phones, RF emitting devices, cell towers, base stations etc., with all results publicly posted and meaningful enforcement. Exposure Monitoring and Health Surveillance Implement a nationwide RF and EMF exposure measuring and monitoring program prioritizing schools, workplaces, residential areas, and sensitive wildlife habitats with 24/7 monitoring. All measurements should be publicly posted on an easy to access website with the ability to see measurements over time. Analyze data with regular updates for the public. Create a national health and environmental surveillance system to document and investigate suspected adverse effects. Consumer Information and Public Education Require clear RF radiation exposure labeling on all cell phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and wireless devices, packaging, and at the point of sale, including applicable separation distances for the test system (if the FCC continues to refuse to update the tests) and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Require clear EMF exposure labeling for charging cords, power adapters, appliances, and other electronics, including information on electric and magnetic field emissions and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Launch a multimedia public health education campaign for the American public on wireless and cell phone radiation, covering cell phones, Bluetooth devices, laptops, tablets, Wi-Fi routers, and other RF-emitting devices, with clear, practical guidance on reducing exposure and using wired alternatives.Ensure clear straightforward guidance and the importance of using wired alternatives. Expand public education to address electric and magnetic field exposures from charging cords, power adapters, appliances, and other electronics, with clear guidance on reducing exposure through distance, placement, and equipment use. Risk Mitigation and Exposure Reduction Mitigate RF and EMF exposures in schools and childcare settings, prioritize wired connections, and establish protective siting policies to ensure schools are not near RF or EMF emitting infrastructure. Prohibit cell towers and high-voltage power lines on or near schools. Incentivise technologies and research that eliminate and/or reduce exposure, including readily available Ethernet connections and other wired options. Require manufacturers to provide readily usable wired connection options, including plug-and-play Ethernet and cable connections instead of wireless.Require manufacturers and network developers to demonstrate that they have researched and integrated EMF reduction strategies into devices and network deployment.Consider a federal certification program for no/low EMF technologies and spaces.Issue guidance to local governments and institutions on reducing exposures through infrastructure siting, land use planning, building networks, and device selection. Accessible Public Spaces and Medical Facilities Ensure public libraries and other public accommodations provide designated areas free of intentional wireless RF emissions, with wired internet access and measures to minimize other non-ionizing EMF exposures. Ensure hospitals, medical offices, and other healthcare facilities provide designated areas and reasonable accommodations for people needing no/low EMF areas while maintaining access to necessary medical equipment and care. Establish safeguards and exposure-reduction protocols in patient rooms, waiting areas, maternity units, neonatal units, and other settings serving medically vulnerable populations. Education and Training for Medical Professionals Incorporate education on RF and other non-ionizing EMF exposures into medical, nursing, and allied health curricula. Develop independent continuing education on the scientific evidence, research gaps, exposure assessment, and practical exposure-reduction measures. Train healthcare professionals to take environmental and occupational exposure histories, including exposures from wireless devices, cell towers, power lines, and workplace equipment. Develop clinical guidance for evaluating and supporting patients reporting symptoms associated with EMF exposure, including assessment of other possible causes and appropriate referrals. Train healthcare professionals on exposure-reduction counseling for children, pregnant patients, workers, and medically vulnerable populations. Provide training on reasonable accommodations and reducing exposures in healthcare settings. Establish training on documenting and reporting suspected adverse effects to the national health surveillance system. Develop medical education materials and training programs. Consumer Information and Public Education Require all relevant federal agencies to provide clear, publicly accessible information on RF and other non-ionizing EMF exposures, acknowledging that scientific evidence exists reporting associations with adverse health effects, with links to the research and explanations of findings and uncertainties. Require the CDC, FDA, and other relevant federal health and environmental agencies to educate the public on practical ways to reduce RF and EMF exposures, including the use of wired alternatives. This should extend beyond cell phones. Require the FDA to establish and enforce clear RF and EMF radiation exposure labeling requirements for cell phones and other RF-emitting consumer devices, including information on packaging and at the point of sale, applicable testing separation distances, and practical instructions to reduce exposure. Workplace Safeguards Establish a comprehensive occupational health program for EMF safety Characterize and monitor exposure levels in a broad range of exposed occupations, from telecom, plastic industry, utilities, healthcare, military, to retail and education. Establish standardized medical surveillance with mandatory recordkeeping and reporting to track worker health and exposure incidents, including overexposures. Initiate R&D and innovation programs that prioritize low-EMF design and emission reduction in industrial and workplace technologies, focusing on minimizing unnecessary EMF exposures through improved engineering and manufacturing practices. Require machinery and equipment to incorporate engineered EMF controls, shielding, and design features that minimize worker exposure, with verified performance and routine maintenance checks. Issue comprehensive, site-specific guidance to minimize EMF exposure and mitigate risk, with special provisions for accommodating pregnant workers, medically vulnerable individuals, and persons with implants. Ensure employer/worker training and education. Restore state and local authority to consider health and environmental effects when regulating the siting of wireless infrastructure. Recommendations for Schools Recommendations for Schools to Protect Children, Teachers, and Staff from the Position Statement By The International Commission On The Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Fields Replace all Wi-Fi networks with hardwired, shielded Ethernet internet connections. Purchase laptops and tablets with Ethernet capability, and with easy steps to disable wireless antennas so that computers connect to the internet with Ethernet only. Require that all cell phones be powered off for the entire school day and stored in a Faraday box or other shielded storage to reduce unnecessary RF exposure and minimize classroom distractions. Require that all devices and technology equipment used in schools have wireless transmitters (intentional radiators) disabled, ensuring that no wireless radiation sources operate within school buildings. Provide wired telephones for personnel in all classrooms. Educate students, staff, and families on the risks of wireless and EMF exposure and how to reduce exposure. Minimize ELF exposures by ensuring adequate grounding, use of shielded cabling, twisted wiring, and devices with low ELF emissions. Ensure students are at a distance from electrical equipment and charging stations. Prohibit cell towers/base stations and other wireless emitting antennas on or near school property as is already the policy in some countries and U.S. school districts.[i] Prohibit high-voltage power lines and electrical substations on or near school property. School boards should maintain a team that can routinely conduct transparent, independent real-time EMF measurements (including body-worn dosimeters) in classrooms, playgrounds, and sports fields to ensure the lowest possible levels are maintained. Continuously mitigate as required to ensure the above principles are adhered to Recommendations for Wildlife and the Environment from “Flora and fauna—How nonhuman species interact with natural and man-made EMF at ecosystem levels and public policy recommendations” published in Frontiers in Public Health. Here are some of the key recommendations. Download the paper here. Recognize non-ionizing EMF as a biologically active pollutant in air, ground, and water, and designate airspace as habitat. Establish an EPA research program on RF biological and ecological impacts, including long-term exposure, cumulative risks, and interactions with other environmental stressors. Determine which ICRP protections for flora and fauna can apply to non-ionizing radiation. Ensure independent science guides federal safety standards protecting public health and the environment. Fund research to close wildlife data gaps and inform updated regulations. Establish wildlife exposure standards addressing chronic, low-level EMF exposure and avoiding or minimizing take of protected species. Model species-specific, whole-body and organ-specific resonance, with laboratory and field validation. Create a species- and frequency-specific exposure database. Create an environmental surveillance/reporting program to track wildlife behavior, reproduction, population trends, and effects on plants and trees in exposed areas. Amend migratory bird “take” protections to address known or suspected EMF impacts. Include wireless radiation effects in tower permitting and migratory bird rulemaking. Implement nationwide EMF monitoring, prioritizing parks, forests, refuges, wetlands, coastal ecosystems, migratory corridors, and wilderness areas. Establish NEPA-compliant procedures assessing cumulative RF and non-ionizing EMF impacts on wildlife, insects, and flora. Include emissions estimates and exposure-reduction design alternatives in environmental impact statements Document categorically excluded facilities and publish environmental assessments and RF compliance reports. Make wildlife protection and reducing EMF exposure a priority in technology and communications network design. Require independent RF spot checks before and after construction. Subject existing and proposed satellite systems to NEPA review. Fund at least one wildlife biologist position at FCC. Require premarket testing, including cost–benefit and cumulative effects analyses. Conduct robust environmental reviews that include EMF exposure before licensing and national deployment of new technologies. Establish accessible post-market reporting systems for ecological impacts. Establish formal interagency coordination, bioelectromagnetics expertise, and regular meetings. Establish species-specific habitat protections. Implement policies to reduce exposure. Direct antenna emissions away from foraging, nesting, and denning sites.Reduce ELF exposure through transmission corridor siting and wire configurations that reduce magnetic fields.Designate low- to no-EMF zones in critical habitats, wilderness areas, parks, forests, refuges, and other sensitive areas. Prohibit higher-frequency deployments that pose heightened risks to sensitive taxa in ecologically sensitive areas. Use barriers, antenna pattern modifications, and power line configurations to reduce wildlife exposure. Prioritize non-invasive non EMFemitting wildlife tracking and assess telemetry equipment for exposures and potential effects before use. Minimize telemetry emissions, transmission times, equipment burden, and the number of tagged animals.

The Peace Research Institute of Oslo, PRIO, provides in an article titled: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: ‘We are entering a world, where technologies no longer simply threaten our bodies. They are directly affecting our minds’ (quoted in Evans, 2022). In this new neurotechnological age, which is characterized by a growing geopolitical neurobiological and Artificial Intelligence (AI) arms race (NSI, 2017a: 20), traditional concepts of war, security and peace are increasingly replaced by terms such as ‘cognitive warfare’ (NATO, 2021), ‘neurodeterrence’ (NSI, 2012: 50), and digital biosecurity” (Giordano and DiEuliis, 2021: 22). Just a few sources on this topic are accessible here: Imagining War in the Neurotechnological Age: https://www.prio.org/comments/1816 https://spectrum.ieee.org/neurotechnology-battle-for-your-brain https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology https://mronline.org/2021/10/13/behind-natos-cognitive-warfare-battle-for-your-brain-waged-by-western-militaries/ As cited by Soucie v. David in a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case from 1970 that was presented in an effort at government disclosure: Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act in response to a persistent problem of legislators and citizens, the problem of obtaining adequate information to evaluate federal programs and formulate wise policies. Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent decisions without such information, and that governmental institutions become unresponsive to public needs if knowledge of their activities is denied to the people and their representatives. The touchstone of any proceedings under the Act must be the clear legislative intent to assure public access to all governmental records whose disclosure would not significantly harm specific governmental interests. The policy of the Act requires that the disclosure requirement be construed broadly, the exemptions narrowly. The public's need for information is especially great in the field of science and technology, for the growth of specialized scientific knowledge threatens to outstrip our collective ability to control its effects on our lives. The OST itself was created to help alleviate this problem; Congress intended that the OST would provide better information and coordination with respect to federal activities in the scientific field. It would defeat the purposes of the OST, as well as the purposes of the Act, to withhold from the public factual information on a federal scientific program whose future is at the center of public debate (https://openjurist.org/448/f2d/1067/soucie-v-e-david). With this in mind, I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old insufficient radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines.The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer and should include known effects of non ionizing radiation from thousands of publications found in early research studies. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. Because the FCC controls this policy during a time when there has been a massive roll out of essentially all wireless technology that is also entirely weaponized and evidence suggests is sharing the same exact network being used by the civilian population to drive all that we use in the day to day for everything we do in our lives from the workplace, inside of our homes and in our schools to the wireless of the medical body area network now advancing in many areas of public health and now also involving increasing surveillance, SMART city and SMART meter technologies that are largely pulsed frequency radiation technologies advancing a system mostly without any safety testing capable of communicating with our appliances, vehicles, HVAC systems, home wiring, and most certainly the bodies of ourselves, our children and our pets. https://technav.ieee.org/topic/wireless-sensing/ The FCC, as a gatekeeper, must reconcile established evidence that is well documented and published like the evidence given in the numerous Biological Effects of Radiation and or Electromagnetic radiation studies in the government records database that have been conducted or originated by agencies such as ARPA, DOD, the Department of National Intelligence, known by the Directors of National Intelligence,published decades ago by the Behavioral Radiology Laboratory, the Division of Neuropsychiatry, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND and a long list of others—frankly, too many of them to name them all have every one conducted their own research studies as well in those agencies. To illustrate how well known this has been across agencies of government, consider the following quote from the July 1971 report on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation: Mead Data Central has had the contractual responsibility for building a computerized data bank of abstracts of the literature which would subsequently be made available to investigators interested in the effects and hazards of nonionizing radiation (Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, July1971, p.1). https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0887119/page/1/mode/2up). The FCC should fully consider all evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation electromagnetic radiation,, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public, which clearly do not and that are decade after decade being used to cover for what may amount to crimes against humanity if not properly dealt with. Please consider the testimonies given in 2011 to the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues here: Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 1/6: https://youtu.be/9iqIaQ94c8o?si=9Xbej-CEqufC0fzP Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 2/6: https://youtu.be/MinTxWhEwiw?si=IPtVc6I74fo1MjA_ Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 3/6: https://youtu.be/-Gim3EQ2s88?si=nrOEhwM5MPsyV1hL Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 4/6: https://youtu.be/TrgSpF70ZRo?si=pbJoWhtfHUBVCYU4 Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 5/6: https://youtu.be/MAxVYPYUVwA?si=vxCZmsHedn8rmHQj Study of Bioethical Issues 3-1-2011 Public Comment part 6/6: https://youtu.be/8JkcYM6YsBE?si=Ev6DooUTJLSwtASt As noted by the International Association of Firefighters IAFF: The FCC authorizes and licenses products, transmitters, and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. It has jurisdiction over all transmitting services in the U.S. except those specifically operated by the Federal Government. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the FCC has certain responsibilities to consider whether its actions will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of transmitters and facilities must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. Human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters is one of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In 1996, the FCC revised its guidelines for RF/MW radiation exposure as a result of a multi-year proceeding and as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (https://www.iaff.org/cell-tower-radiation/). I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court, which in all honesty may be seriously deficient given the nature of wireless frequency based technology and the capability to interact with human bodies and biological systems that are also weapons systems. I also urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court. It is critical that we have a widespread campaign to address what has been kept from the record for decades regarding wireless based technologies and their impact on health systems and the environment. These are also very much so weaponized as already noted, and the same weapons in use by intelligence, law enforcement, military and its contractors now are made a part of our daily lives coexisting in the spaces we share while causing significant unregulated effects and subsequent damages. This has likely been since the very beginning but is only increasing with their widespread implementation. In many ways, bringing this weapon system into the hands of civilians is also having the effect of damaging the testimonies of those who have been made into victims of systematic non consensual and for dual use human subjects of weapons research because what is happening is that those reporting similar health effects as the ones who are intentionally being targeted for experimentation declared legal for purposes other than warfare, are the same or similar symptoms being reported by those who are having various health effects simply from chronic daily exposure to wireless devices without this being necessarily weaponized against them in any way. The two may have similarities but those who are targeted are experiencing things that others are not experiencing, so it is important to make the very clear distinction to recognize that this is a technological system that should never have been made available for dual uses in the civilian environment because this technology was released and employed without any update to the safety guidelines making it impossible for many people who have suffered long before the full scale introduction of wireless for civilian use to be recognized as research subjects or for those who are being targeted simultaneously to this full scale introduction. There were already a growing number of people reporting to government agencies of this experimental dual use program going back to the writing of EO 12333 stating that they were being targeted by various hidden methods and weapons prior to the roll out of cellphones and completely wireless systems, so that must be dealt with to give relief to those people, because if not, what type of government are we running and what type of government do we really have? Because the FCC gate keeping of information regarding this technology and its safety guidelines have not been updated in thirty years even those who in their day to day jobs are around, maybe are testing and or are using these technological weapons are not always able to receive adequate health coverage for any injuries or chronic health conditions as a direct result of a lack of full disclosure.

Hello, I used to live in the Paris region. I worked with computers, and I lived in a lovely house with my husband and our two children. In 2013, I could no longer sleep. I was exhausted, I had tinnitus and severe headaches. I searched the internet using these keywords and discovered that I was ElectroHyperSensitive. I could no longer tolerate cell phone masts after the mast near my home was upgraded to 4G. At home, I switched off the Wi-Fi, got rid of the DECT phones, the Bluetooth keyboards and mice, and turned off my mobile phone. But my neighbors’ Wi-Fi was causing me pain, and as soon as I went outside, other people’s mobile phones became unbearable. So I left my job and left Paris. I moved to the countryside with my children, living in a mobile home on a friend’s land. Then a mast one kilometer away was upgraded to 4G+, and I had to flee again. Eventually, I found a house deep in the forest... and I feel well there. But as soon as I go outside, I suffer. So I have been confined to my house for 14 years because of EMR Syndrome. I no longer have access to medical care, I can no longer attend choir practice, I can no longer go to my children’s end-of-year performances, or attend parent-teacher meetings. This is no life.

Non native EMF exposures of even moderate amounts make me feel tired, migraines and skin atrophy. Please establish laws to protect us emf sensitive. Hardwired ethernet is a great option.